Is evil primarily a product of mankind or nature?

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of evil and its origins. It is suggested that evil is a product of mankind as we are the only species that identifies, defines, and reciprocates evil. However, it is also argued that evil can be considered a natural outgrowth of suffering, as it is often linked to dying, disease, and disaster. The conversation also explores the idea that survival may depend on the identification of evil as something or someone who is incompatible with our own well-being. There is also a discussion about whether fear of the unknown is a prerequisite for evil. Some believe that evil is a result of human perception and is not inherent in nature, while others argue that it is a consequence of moral consciousness. The conversation also del
  • #1
Loren Booda
3,125
4
Is evil primarily a product of mankind or nature? It seems that mankind is unique in identifying, defining, and reciprocating evil. Evil, however, with its seeming connection to dying, disease and disaster, might be considered a natural outgrowth of suffering.

Survival may depend in part upon the identification of "evil" as another being whose characteristics are perceived as vitally incompatible. Can that being be a twin as much as a far removed species? Is fear of the unknown a prerequisite to evil?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The way I see it, before the rudimentary evolution of moral consciousness there was no "evil" -- only nature doing what it does. So it must be our fault, even if all we did was create the category and attach a label.
 
  • #3
p.s. I'm stealing this thread and dragging it over to Philosophy.
 
  • #4
I think that "evil" is just a human term that we put to things that oppose our morality and definition of "good". As always, in nature there must be balance, and all systems tend to end in a state of balance. The same thing goes for "right" and "wrong", "black" and "white" and all opposing dualities. How can you define white as not as the opposit of black. However, nature does not have colours. The endity of colour is just a human preception - our sensor, the eye, perceives an object as black, red yellow etc. Good and evil are perceived by our moral "sensor" and nothing else. I don't believe that the actually exist in nature.
 
  • #5
And then we have the classical question: Is it good or evil for a man to steal bread from a store to feed hist starving children?

In my opinion, 'Good' and 'Evil' are human created approximations.
 
  • #6
"evil" is how we define something we don't like. In some cases, people may even play into the fear about the word, knowing full well someone isn't evil, but saying it is to turn masses against them.

In the simplest case though, I think we just consider severe discomfort, when caused by another human being... to be "evil".

"good" of course, follows as a human action that is pleasant to other humans.

As your sample size of opinions increases, where 99/100 people think some named action is evil, it becomes accepted as, at the very least, 'wrong' to that society.

Other things are not so clear... like maybe 50/100 people are discomforted by a certain human action, so there's debate over it. If 8/10 voters and power-holders believe it's wrong, then it becomes a law or a policy, regardless of what the other 50/100 people think.
 
  • #7
Evil is pain suffering. Without pain and suffering, there would be no such thing as evil...
 
  • #8
Moridin said:
And then we have the classical question: Is it good or evil for a man to steal bread from a store to feed hist starving children?

In my opinion, 'Good' and 'Evil' are human created approximations.

So what should the judge say, I wonder. The same thing goes for killing someone. If you are from US, I believe that no DA would procesute someone that killed someone else in selfdefense. I am from Greece and there nothing like this in here. Recently we had a case that was shown on TV, where a sleeping old farmer, while at sleep, woke up to realize that he was being stolen by someone. When he used his shotgun to defend his property (by threatening the guy) the thief came on to him, and naturally he had to defend for his life. The DA procecuted him the next morning!:grumpy:

So what should the old man do. Let the thief disarm him and probably kill him. Was what he did evil? He just defended his right to life, by refusing the other man's right for the same thing. Morality often contradicts the occasional law, and while laws are often and more easily converted, our moral values don't (or at least not so easily or often).

If the man that stole the bread to feed his family, also killed the baker? What would then be the case? The same man, two different cases. And what if he killed the baker, trying to leave his shop in one piece? In most cases, I believe that what we define as "evil" can be avoided by just searching harder for another sollution to ones problems. But stealing is often the case in wild life survival. Often do we see in documentaries, one animal to kill his pray, and another, stronger predator "steals" its pray. But in this case, we see stealing as something of a status for the specific social structure of the predators.
 
  • #9
I think that this is another question for the consciousness debate.
Humans can reflect on their surroundings but also themselves, and we can learn that certain things are good and certain things are bad because we ourselves have an opinion on what we like and don't like, and what we fear.

I mean if you are aware that you are afraid of getting physically hurt, and this is a negative emotion to you, why would you go and do it to others on purpose?
Hence morality is born.
 
  • #10
Deontology ftw
 
  • #11
learningphysics said:
Evil is pain suffering. Without pain and suffering, there would be no such thing as evil...

What is your distinction between pain and suffering?
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Pain and suffering have nothing to do with defining evil. Evil is an expression of motive or intention, pain and suffering are outcomes of action or inaction. Pain and suffering is often caused when there is no evil motive, i.e accidents, natural disasters, etc.

Evil is the intentional desire to destroy, corrupt, disfigure, or other wise ruin something or someone because it pleases you. A truly evil person receives some personal gratification from the wrong they are doing. This kind of evil does not come from nature, but from the corruption of conscience that follows repeated choices that go against what the individual knows is right. Every time the "do unto others" rule is broken, the individual slips further into the darkness where the light of conscience cannot shine.

Once a person slips into this darkness, the thought of doing good no longer brings any pleasure, but only conviction for all the wrongs already done. The good things of this world become their enemy because the light of those things makes their darkness so much darker. The only source of pleasure is to destroy that which is good, and so justify the darkness they have chosen. Evil is an evolution of immoral choices that break the will free from conscience.
 
  • #13
Loren Booda said:
Is evil primarily a product of mankind or nature?
Thus debated the ancient Greeks.

According to the 2nd century tourist guide Pausanias, the old Athenians had their own court to instigate legal action against wicked inanimate objects.

For example, a hammer that fell off a shelf and hit a man in his head so that he got a grave concussion was found guilty; the poor hammer was sentenced to be taken apart and be destroyed.

I'm not kidding, this really happened in the cradle of rational thought..:cry:
 
  • #14
Pythagorean said:
In the simplest case though, I think we just consider severe discomfort, when caused by another human being... to be "evil".

"good" of course, follows as a human action that is pleasant to other humans.

Benedict de Spinoza, how we admire thee.

:approve:
 

1. What does it mean for evil to be a product of mankind or nature?

This question is asking about the origins of evil, whether it is a result of human actions or something inherent in nature.

2. Is there evidence to support one side over the other?

There is ongoing debate and research on this topic, but there is no consensus on whether evil is primarily a product of mankind or nature. Some argue that human behavior and societal influences play a larger role, while others believe that certain biological factors can contribute to evil actions.

3. Can both mankind and nature contribute to evil?

Yes, it is possible for both human actions and natural phenomena to contribute to the existence of evil. For example, societal factors such as inequality and poverty can lead to evil actions, but natural disasters can also cause suffering and harm.

4. Are there any studies or experiments that have explored this question?

There have been various studies and experiments conducted to examine the origins of evil. Some have focused on the influence of social and environmental factors, while others have looked at biological and genetic factors. However, the results have been inconclusive and further research is needed.

5. How does understanding the origins of evil impact society?

Understanding the origins of evil can help us address and prevent it in our society. If we believe that evil is solely a result of human actions, we can focus on improving societal issues that may contribute to it. On the other hand, if we believe that certain biological factors play a role, we can work towards identifying and addressing these factors. Ultimately, a better understanding of the origins of evil can help us create a safer and more compassionate society.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
7K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
56
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top